The researchers refer to the site as 'anti-heritage', because it contradicts what agencies and heritage practitioners typically value.

They say: 'We feel justified in sticking our tongues out at the heritage establishment and suggesting that punk's iconoclasm provides the context for conservation decision-making.

'This is an important site, historically and archaeologically, for the material and evidence it contains. But should we retain it for the benefit of this and future generations? In our view, with anti-heritage, different rules apply.'